This assumes, of course, that you have X number of processors to chose from. If you can't do it, the answer is still 'throw more money at it, buy more hardware.'
Except that in this case, one of the options they are promoting is FPGA - Field Programmable Gate Array - which can literally be adapted to the problem by reprogramming them. They are, in effect, an infinite number of processors to choose from.
Look to see FPGA's showing up as coprocessors on more prosaic AMD Opteron motherboards in the near future - Cray isn't the only one that thinks "FPGA on Board" is a good idea.
Otherwise they would be public domain and guess what - then no one would contribute or even ADMIT that it has taken your code and put into their program.
Hey Mister! Mister! What part of "no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut." did you fail to understand?
RMS can believe what he wants to, but he believes in copyright law, because it what he has said in life lecture which I attented two years ago in Riga, Latvia.
When you totally miss such an obvious point written out in plain English, you cast serious doubt on your ability to understand anything RMS said in person.
That's the law. Like it or not. The same law GPL and BSD is founded on.
OOOOHH! Yet another insightful, "GPL needs copyright law to function" poster. NOT!
Have you read the GPL? There is a reason RMS calls it the "copyleft" it is because the GPL is a HACK of copyright law. It uses copyrights to subvert copyrights. In the Utopia According to RMS - there would be no need for copyright laws, no need for the GPL, because no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut.
As for the BSD license? They so close to the public domain that they might as well be the same. BSD really doesn't need copyright even today.
I disagree. You can buy their stuff and still put even more economic hurt on them than a simple boycott.
My strategy - buy used DVDs, buy them from rental stores for ~$5 a disc. Then lend them out to as many people as you can. I usually work at companies with mostly well-educated, well-paid employees. I lend my $5 used DVDs out to anyone who asks, after seeing another guy do it, I even keep an inventory of recent titles on my desk for easy borrowing.
These people are the studio's target audience - the single people have plenty of disposable income and the parents have kids which dispose of their income for them. When I lend out my $5 copy of Star Wars ep3 to 20 people over 3 months, that's at least 10 less people who would otherwise have paid money to rent or buy (I presume the other 10 just borrow it because its free, so no real loss of business opportunity there.)
For each $5, I am stealing (to use the MPAA/RIAA's favorite terminology) around $100 worth of business away from the studios and their associates (they've got 'revenue-sharing' deals with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video) and not only is it 100% legal, I also get to own the DVD of the movie too.
You might not think that just one guy can make a difference - that might be true, but if you check Blockbuster Video's financial status, you will see they are soo deep in the red that they will probably be bankrupt within 3 years, maybe sooner. I claim complete responsibility for that!
With MS essentially bribing GoDaddy to make the rather trivial move for their parked domains, you have to wonder just what MS's PR people were thinking.
Will their new slogan be, "Microsoft - where do you want to park today?"
if you are a creative person there is nothing wrong with trying to make a living from your cretions.
Of course there is. It would be obviously wrong to point a gun at someone and make them pay for a copy, "or else."
My point is that there is nothing wrong up to a point and then there is wrong.
The debate is about where that point is when it goes from right to wrong. Some people believe that point is just short of pointing the gun, and some people believe that the point is all the way back at simply publishing the creation. A lot of people don't really know where they think the point is, just somewhere in between those two extremes and thus you get the constant debate, rehashing the same ideas over and over again.
Red Hat owns the images and copyrights that have the words "Red Hat." Thats it, and thats what your paying for when you buy RHEL.
Hardly. What you are paying for is a support contract for that specific build of RHEL on a specific machine or set of machines. Redhat is in the business of selling support contracts, they've choosen to sell them for specific builds of the RHEL distribution. There is no deeper, trickier meaning beyond that.
Red Hat has no problem with not paying for OSS packages it uses, why should I have a problem with not paying Red Hat?
Whether they do or do not make any significant contributions to the OSS/Free source base is irrelevant.
~25 years ago I read the 'original' Han Solo Trilogy by Brian Daley and thought it was great stuff. Those stories would make for a great, action-packed arc of a tv series.
He's released cracks for various pieces of software, but it's not like the guy's actually broken actual strong encryption algos.
And such 'cracks' are the best way to attack otherwise strong crypto-systems - don't try to crack an algorithm -- crack the implementation. Look for the vulnerabilities in the systems that use strong cryptography and find the back-doors, or break in a hole in the wall, but trying to go mano-a-mano with the entire crypto community isn't a smart thing and you are exactly right -- that isn't what DVD-Jon has ever done.
Not that I would imply that CSS is a strong algorithm, it ain't. But the new stuff for BLU-HD-RAY uses AES and the stuff that the Zim-man is using to security VOIP also uses tried and true crypto algorithms. That doesn't mean there won't be flaws in the implementations that can be exploited and Jon-Jon He's Our Man, If He Can't Exploit It, No One Can!!! Yeah Jon. Or something like that.
After the incident was publicized, the Ontario Ministry of Education was investigated and two teachers were suspended.
That is a very misleading statement. Very much indicative of your entire posts's dittohead spin. There was one teacher suspended and the teacher was suspended before the investigation in other words, the school's administration was doing its job - not promoting "islamic hate" as you claim.
Here's the press blurb the government issued that summarized the investigation.
It took me less time to debunk your post with google than it took you to write it in the first place. Next time, could you at least try to do a little background research before parroting the limbaugh "orthodoxy?"
you forget that AT&T will control a significant portion of the DSL market, which would allow AT&T to set forth the same anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior (by filtering VoIP data).
Perhaps now the nature of recent attempts to create a tiered internet is revealed as a stalking horse.
Since these guys are going to have to make some sort of "compromises" in order to pass regulatory scrutiny, what better compromise than to sacrifice something they don't have anyway? Make a bunch of noise about multi-tiering and then tell the FCC that they will support a law that explicitly makes tier-type pricing illegal. Then ReBell (short for Resurrection of Ma Bell) gets to proceed with the merger(s), and the cable companies are now prevented from pursuing tiered internet pricing as part of said hypothetical law,
It'd be an interesting test case for the DMCA, wouldn't it? In this case it's not specifically copy or content protection software that's being circumvented, but a feature designed to maintain (potentially) a marketing agreement
The two judges both agree that Congress intended the 'nationwide search' provision for going after email or other Internet data to apply to the investigation of all federal crimes and not just to cases involving terrorism."
They are right too.
Since most of congress did not even read the patriot act, then the "intention" in it is pretty much that of the author's - John Asscraft. We all know how upon becoming AG he went from a champion for privacy rights (he was a major vocal opponent to the Clipper Chip backdoor spy-scheme under Clinton's administration) to an abolitionist of privacy rights (and state's rights for that matter, another bit of personal hypocrisy there). So it is safe to conclude that Asscraft fully intended the pat-riot act to be used as broadly as the DoJ could stretch it.
There are a bunch of devices for your car that let you unlock it by tapping out a code on the side of the car. Here is the first one that came up in google:
Who would have produced that 'culture' if they hadnt payed for it? Would it have simply appeared?
Once upon a time, before the copyright cartels came to dominate, such work was created on a comission basis. There is no intrinsic reason that we can't go back to that business model, and leverage the reach of the internet to allow anyone, anywhere to comission work from anyone and anywhere in the world. Even large productions can be comissioned with a variant of the "group buy" idea that is already very popular in niche communities on the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Is an "Internet" department?
Why they are the guys in charge of the free porn, of course!
This assumes, of course, that you have X number of processors to chose from. If you can't do it, the answer is still 'throw more money at it, buy more hardware.'
Except that in this case, one of the options they are promoting is FPGA - Field Programmable Gate Array - which can literally be adapted to the problem by reprogramming them. They are, in effect, an infinite number of processors to choose from.
Look to see FPGA's showing up as coprocessors on more prosaic AMD Opteron motherboards in the near future - Cray isn't the only one that thinks "FPGA on Board" is a good idea.
Otherwise they would be public domain and guess what - then no one would contribute or even ADMIT that it has taken your code and put into their program.
Hey Mister! Mister! What part of "no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut." did you fail to understand?
RMS can believe what he wants to, but he believes in copyright law, because it what he has said in life lecture which I attented two years ago in Riga, Latvia.
When you totally miss such an obvious point written out in plain English, you cast serious doubt on your ability to understand anything RMS said in person.
That's the law. Like it or not. The same law GPL and BSD is founded on.
OOOOHH! Yet another insightful, "GPL needs copyright law to function" poster. NOT!
Have you read the GPL? There is a reason RMS calls it the "copyleft" it is because the GPL is a HACK of copyright law. It uses copyrights to subvert copyrights. In the Utopia According to RMS - there would be no need for copyright laws, no need for the GPL, because no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut.
As for the BSD license? They so close to the public domain that they might as well be the same. BSD really doesn't need copyright even today.
Don't buy their stuff.. any of their stuff!
I disagree. You can buy their stuff and still put even more economic hurt on them than a simple boycott.
My strategy - buy used DVDs, buy them from rental stores for ~$5 a disc. Then lend them out to as many people as you can. I usually work at companies with mostly well-educated, well-paid employees. I lend my $5 used DVDs out to anyone who asks, after seeing another guy do it, I even keep an inventory of recent titles on my desk for easy borrowing.
These people are the studio's target audience - the single people have plenty of disposable income and the parents have kids which dispose of their income for them. When I lend out my $5 copy of Star Wars ep3 to 20 people over 3 months, that's at least 10 less people who would otherwise have paid money to rent or buy (I presume the other 10 just borrow it because its free, so no real loss of business opportunity there.)
For each $5, I am stealing (to use the MPAA/RIAA's favorite terminology) around $100 worth of business away from the studios and their associates (they've got 'revenue-sharing' deals with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video) and not only is it 100% legal, I also get to own the DVD of the movie too.
You might not think that just one guy can make a difference - that might be true, but if you check Blockbuster Video's financial status, you will see they are soo deep in the red that they will probably be bankrupt within 3 years, maybe sooner. I claim complete responsibility for that!
With MS essentially bribing GoDaddy to make the rather trivial move for their parked domains, you have to wonder just what MS's PR people were thinking.
Will their new slogan be, "Microsoft - where do you want to park today?"
if you are a creative person there is nothing wrong with trying to make a living from your cretions.
Of course there is.
It would be obviously wrong to point a gun at someone and make them pay for a copy, "or else."
My point is that there is nothing wrong up to a point and then there is wrong.
The debate is about where that point is when it goes from right to wrong. Some people believe that point is just short of pointing the gun, and some people believe that the point is all the way back at simply publishing the creation. A lot of people don't really know where they think the point is, just somewhere in between those two extremes and thus you get the constant debate, rehashing the same ideas over and over again.
Red Hat owns the images and copyrights that have the words "Red Hat." Thats it, and thats what your paying for when you buy RHEL.
Hardly. What you are paying for is a support contract for that specific build of RHEL on a specific machine or set of machines. Redhat is in the business of selling support contracts, they've choosen to sell them for specific builds of the RHEL distribution. There is no deeper, trickier meaning beyond that.
Red Hat has no problem with not paying for OSS packages it uses, why should I have a problem with not paying Red Hat?
Whether they do or do not make any significant contributions to the OSS/Free source base is irrelevant.
Has Microsoft EVER released anything that was ON TIME?
Yes, all the time.
They are called "press releases."
~25 years ago I read the 'original' Han Solo Trilogy by Brian Daley and thought it was great stuff.
Those stories would make for a great, action-packed arc of a tv series.
One word, virginmobile. They seem to be the least evil of all cell phone companies...
Plus, they have a name that could be used for most slashdotter's cars.
People end up demanding facts and figures for something that can only be explained in terms of human experience.
Since one of their major goals is objectivity, no wonder. Sounds like you've been trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.
He's released cracks for various pieces of software, but it's not like the guy's actually broken actual strong encryption algos.
And such 'cracks' are the best way to attack otherwise strong crypto-systems - don't try to crack an algorithm -- crack the implementation. Look for the vulnerabilities in the systems that use strong cryptography and find the back-doors, or break in a hole in the wall, but trying to go mano-a-mano with the entire crypto community isn't a smart thing and you are exactly right -- that isn't what DVD-Jon has ever done.
Not that I would imply that CSS is a strong algorithm, it ain't. But the new stuff for BLU-HD-RAY uses AES and the stuff that the Zim-man is using to security VOIP also uses tried and true crypto algorithms. That doesn't mean there won't be flaws in the implementations that can be exploited and Jon-Jon He's Our Man, If He Can't Exploit It, No One Can!!! Yeah Jon. Or something like that.
These names are just too confusing nowadays is this a KDE project (ElonKa) or a gnome project like Ekiga?
After the incident was publicized, the Ontario Ministry of Education was investigated and two teachers were suspended.
That is a very misleading statement. Very much indicative of your entire posts's dittohead spin. There was one teacher suspended and the teacher was suspended before the investigation in other words, the school's administration was doing its job - not promoting "islamic hate" as you claim.
Here's the press blurb the government issued that summarized the investigation.
It took me less time to debunk your post with google than it took you to write it in the first place. Next time, could you at least try to do a little background research before parroting the limbaugh "orthodoxy?"
you forget that AT&T will control a significant portion of the DSL market, which would allow AT&T to set forth the same anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior (by filtering VoIP data).
Perhaps now the nature of recent attempts to create a tiered internet is revealed as a stalking horse.
Since these guys are going to have to make some sort of "compromises" in order to pass regulatory scrutiny, what better compromise than to sacrifice something they don't have anyway? Make a bunch of noise about multi-tiering and then tell the FCC that they will support a law that explicitly makes tier-type pricing illegal. Then ReBell (short for Resurrection of Ma Bell) gets to proceed with the merger(s), and the cable companies are now prevented from pursuing tiered internet pricing as part of said hypothetical law,
It'd be an interesting test case for the DMCA, wouldn't it? In this case it's not specifically copy or content protection software that's being circumvented, but a feature designed to maintain (potentially) a marketing agreement
Kind of like, oh, I dunno, DVD region coding?
You can't buy opensource. Once it is out there, it is out there.
Sure you can - the MPAA and RIAA members make billions selling the same thing over and over, even though "it is out there" after the first sale.
The two judges both agree that Congress intended the 'nationwide search' provision for going after email or other Internet data to apply to the investigation of all federal crimes and not just to cases involving terrorism."
They are right too.
Since most of congress did not even read the patriot act, then the "intention" in it is pretty much that of the author's - John Asscraft. We all know how upon becoming AG he went from a champion for privacy rights (he was a major vocal opponent to the Clipper Chip backdoor spy-scheme under Clinton's administration) to an abolitionist of privacy rights (and state's rights for that matter, another bit of personal hypocrisy there). So it is safe to conclude that Asscraft fully intended the pat-riot act to be used as broadly as the DoJ could stretch it.
There are a bunch of devices for your car that let you unlock it by tapping out a code on the side of the car.
Here is the first one that came up in google:
http://aggeggi.com/?action=view&id=671978
I wish I could give both of you baseball bats. Brainless morons.
What are you, a girl with kaleidoscope eyes?
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
You reached for the secret too soon, you cried for the moon.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Who would have produced that 'culture' if they hadnt payed for it? Would it have simply appeared?
Once upon a time, before the copyright cartels came to dominate, such work was created on a comission basis. There is no intrinsic reason that we can't go back to that business model, and leverage the reach of the internet to allow anyone, anywhere to comission work from anyone and anywhere in the world. Even large productions can be comissioned with a variant of the "group buy" idea that is already very popular in niche communities on the net.
Then whence the "Not at all" comment?
Because when somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
Ah, I get it, you're trying to be incoherent so it's not as obvious that you lost.
Of course! Come on you raver, you seer of visions.
You're seriously denying having written that?
No, I wrote it.
Verbal LSD
I don't think you know Lucy very well.
Look back at the post where I wrote "right back at you".
There is no such post.
"It was to see if I could pull your strings enough to make you go google an inane little fact." Your words.
Not at all.
There's far easier ways to get that effect.
What effect?
The line I quoted.
I don't see anything quoted, except my question.